So this accompanies either: 1) a $6.7 Trillion increase in wages, 2) a $6.7 Trillion increase in US Treasury deficit, 3) a $6.7 Trillion increase in (obviously unpayable) debt or 4) some combination of the above... ... to be mathematically possible. 1 is stable, 2 is impossible because the treasury can't give money to foreigners to fund their internet habits, and 3 is obviously unstable.

It takes literally months for people to figure out how MP games work. Even simple ones. Here's what people forget: You play games, you don't consume them.

There is no way any review of this game is valid after this little time. I played the demo and preview (after playing BF extensively since BF1942s demo) and have yet to make up my mind. Most if the mechanics are still locked inside toys that they can't have unlocked.

Speaking from the UK (as a Software Engineer incidentally): the lack of tiny companies that take a vast cut of wealth while hiring very few people and not producing much of anything except abstract constructs like IP isn't really worrying me. And the reason is transparently obvious: WW2 moved a vast amount of the Europe's intellectual talent to the US, the Pentagon funneled massive funding to public sector research, then transferred the IP to the private sector.

...the industrial revolution!

This question is so loaded it's pointless. You may as well as "when did the aliens stop beating their wives?" You have to assume, axiomatically, that they would have any reason to invade, but that's absurd. It's even self contradictory. The nature of the challenge put forward is that aliens have mad advanced technology... so what would they invade for? It's like a person from affluent western society giving up their life and flying to the other side of the world, to a desert island, to beat up a native, take their shack.. just because they have a tree that grows fruit you like. IT MAKES NO SENSE. In fact that makes even more sense than alien invasion because aliens will have evolved in a completely different eco-system an wouldn't consider our's very inviting. This is just another zombie apocalypse escapist fantasy distracting people from real looming apocalypses that are too boring to worry about.

Which people? Europeans? People from the 17th Century? People who disagree with you? Over and over you have jumped to conclusions based on knowing nothing significant about me. All you know is I disagree with you on 1 specific subject. In fact, I'm not sure you even know what it is you disagree with. You just assume things based on, what? Race? You have assumed that you can legitimately assume things about 'Europeans', while assuming that 'Europeans' must think about the Americans the way you do about Europeans. Straight forward projection of your own biases.

Basic order of events: The constitution was written after the revolutionary war. Those crooks had lost their stake in the US by the time the constitution came along. There was no upper-class, not by previous standards. 'Upper class' started to become what we think of it now: i.e. straight up wealth.

FYI:

John Jay

James Madison explaining why the US government shouldn't be like England's.

What formally delineates state versus federal systems is another matter. The fact that you don't understand the mechanics of modern money systems isn't my problem.

You can't give out pompous indignation about ignorance of history, with credibility, while not understanding the significance of a constitution being written "by land owners for land owners" while the common modern interpretation is that it is "by the people for the people".

There is a fundamental difference between how the UK relates to the EU and how US states relate to the US government: The UK issues it's own currency. Those are all very good reasons for why your federal government should be limited, and I agree... but I never argued that there is no valid reason to limit federal government. So you listing some reasons is good but... so what? You didn't actually respond to the central point, relating back to the start of this: the proposition that the constitution was written by and for capital owners.

...which you just assumed for some reason, then...

...that's some sort of meta-irony.

It's interesting to look at this discussion from outside the US. For example, the manifest difference between the federal government and state government. They're both governments. And states vary hugely in size and population and any number of factors. The narrative seems to talk about the federal government as this monster that has to be controlled, while state governments are mostly left out of that narrative, and I've yet to see an explanation for why they are cast so differently. I can't see what the argument is for state level government being the right 'size' and federal not. It's just taken because it is. I mean why not have 1000 states? Or 6? Would those people against federal government turn their sites to state government if they ever achieved their current goals? Anyway, I was making a contextual observation. When talking about the US constitution (and for that matter I think the same is true of the magna carta) it's cast into a narrative involving two core entities: the people and the government. And then a discussion about the ratio of fed to state authority. I think, given the context in which these documents were written, it's more accurate to recognise at least 3 entities: Tenants, Landlords and the Government. In the UK and other European countries it's perhaps more like 5: Serfs, Tenants, Landlords, Nobles and the Government. Then the conversation is really about how the government reflects the wishes of the other entities. When documents like the Constitution or the Magna Carta talk about 'freemen' they refer to land owners. The magna carta was written explicitly to protect land owners from the common law. If you look at the opinions of those involved in writing the US constitution it seems clear that at the time it was understood that only land owners have a vested interest in government. So, jumping to now, there is a section of US society that sees the limitation of federal authority as a manifest goal that is held axiomatically, but you have to ask: Who is the axiomatic limitation of federal authority designed to protect, and from whom?

Seriously, what's with this us-and-them attitude? The UK is a polyarchy.

What does my country have to do with anything? The UK is an Oligarchy. Why d'you think I think my country is special? I never said anything to give that impression. You have implanted your own interpretation of my mind. What's with the 'us-and-them' attitude? "Electing leaders is democracy if you are given distinct choices in candidates with differing philosophies. " Democracy is a theoretical abstraction, perhaps one that can never exist. Who knows. In the real world there are pragmatic steps that have to be taken and what you call 'direct democracy' might not be practical. Electing leaders is just a pragmatic approach. One of many. This is the difference. But having an election to decide who runs the country is just that: voting for a leader. Just like voting for the best singer on TV doesn't ensure democracy, it just applies the procedure of voting to choosing a winner. Whether electing leaders creates a democratic government depends one whether those leaders implement the public's policy choices. If the political system, by it's design, doesn't ensure that those 'leaders' implement the peoples policy then that system can't be said to be a democracy, but rather what some people call a procedural democracy.

You are confusing Democracy with Representation, illustrated by you not seeing that 'partial democracy' is a contradiction in terms. Democracy isn't voting for things or electing leaders. Democracy is implementing policies reflective of the population's requirements. Representation and voting for representatives are just pragmatic routines. I would argue that in a real democracy you vote for policies and the people in office should be instantly recalled when they deviate from agreed policy. Representatives should be interchangeable, and 'leaders' shouldn't even exist in a democratic government. Electing leaders is not democracy